The Evolution of Evolution
Contrary to the way it is portrayed by Creationists, the theory of evolution wasn’t handed down from the Goddess Athe to her true prophet Darwin, to whose faith all subsequent researchers have to slavishly adhere. From the day each of Darwin’s books were published, and for the century and a half since, serious and powerful researchers (as well as semi-educated and/or pseudo-scientific dabblers) have busily been trying (and mostly failing) to make a name for themselves by finding a flaw — any flaw — in the overall Theory of Evolution. Darwin’s singular contribution, the principle that those members of a population best adapted to an environment will survive, is rarely challenged.
I was inspired to write this post after reading Can God be scientific? Consider the evidence, Part II by Daniel Jarvis. His post makes it clear that Creationists believe that all fields of science that are cited in support of this basic principle of modern biology have to meet criteria set by Darwin. These include astronomy, geology, genetics, tectonics, crystallography, quantum theory, and many other fields of study.
Let’s look at one supporting pillar of biological evolution: Things take time. The best Creationist argument (IMHO) is that all the species could not possibly have evolved in the short time since the beginning of the universe (or just of the world, for those who accept astronomical science) a few thousand years ago. I discuss this in detail here. In brief, the age of the world and the age of the universe were both determined independently with no reference to Darwin. Before Darwin was born, both geologists and astronomers knew that the Universe and the Earth were older than Biblical time indicated. The estimated ages exponentially increased as more and more accurate methods of measuring were developed. However, for the last few decades the estimates have held steady.
If the world is very young (Biblical history including Genesis is shorter than the archaeological record of modern man), then there obviously wasn’t time to evolve the diversity we see today. That the world is old is not a presumption, it is a hard-won conclusion based on millions of pieces of independent corroborating evidence, and no contradicting evidence.
It is not a matter of tens of thousands of living and retired/demised researchers all obeying an authority, but rather of all these people following the evidence and constructing and modifying theories to fit the facts. Their greatest wish is to change a theory and win a Nobel.
What of the popular Creationist argument that evolutionists have contradicted themselves, and even Darwin? Sure. That’s how science works. First, review what is known, and then try to improve on it. Most newly announced Creation Science discoveries are already on record, and their fallacies well documented. Scientists record both their successes and failures. Creationists are doomed to repeat their history because they only examine the (scant and questionable) positive results they’ve had before proceeding.
As with the age of the universe, the Theory of Evolution will continue to be refined (evolve) as better methods of measurement and detection are developed (evolved). Therefore, the Theory explaining the observed fact of evolution will likely never be complete or uncontested. But at the core, there are no objections within a scientific frame. The basic kernel of it has remained unchanged for over a century.
http://www.espen.com/archives/2005/12/doonesbury_on_c.html
This blog is just so so confusion,
First, as a former evolutionist for over 29 yers, and science educator, I came to the reality, that there was no empirical fossil evidence for Darwins hypothesis. The fact that now even ‘Lucy’ has been eliminated as a link, there is zero empirical visible data such as photos. I now agree with Steven J. Gould, expired, that “it’s been the best kept secrete” that there is no evidence of any fossil suport. Those conferences in the eighties exposed the reality, they had no empirical proof. Therefore, he presented the case for punctuated equilibrium.
The age of the universe is not important here, Just the Facts
Integrityis
Time: a measurement of space between events; an indisputably human concept, open to reevaluation, like science. In the beginning God did not create time. He created light, separated it from darkness, and in consecutive events separated by measurements of space, he created everything else. All of it evolves. Every animal, vegetable and mineral. We evolve, too. Time is irrelevant, as is our opinion of the manner in which it elapses. In the scheme of things, it won’t be long until every knee bends and every voice proclaims His glory. My job is not to convince you of the message. Only to deliver it.
Fred: Your story doesn’t resonate right to me. I challenge you to step forward with your real name and something more to prove to this community that your really, at some time in your past, understood and taught evolution.
Sorry, but sentences like “The age of the universe is not important here, Just the Facts” sounds like incredibly shoddy science.
How arrogant of Dan Klarmann. To say that science is always right and always agrees with itself. I will just say this about ONE topic. The age of the earth. Dating: Radiometric (element uranium 238 decays into lead 206 with a 1/2 life of 4.5 billion yrs. Rocks from volcanoes in Russia to be 5 billion yrs. Actually known to be within 200 yrs. Not an accurate measurement. 15 million tons of nickel meteorite dust settle to earth each year. If earth as old as science says, dust should be 200 feet thick. The decay of earth’s magnetic field. The field has a half-life of 1400 yrs. (means loses 50% every 1400 yrs) That means, 7000 yrs. ago, it was 32 times as strong as it is today. It can’t be imagined even by science to have been much more than that. Oh, and than there’s that pesky “moon” thing. When NASA went to the moon, they computed the age by the best know science. Expected the lander to sink several FEET into the lunar surface. Check out the “pads” on the end of the legs. Those were put there to keep it from sinking. What thay got were a few inches. Proved moon to be only few THOUSAND years old. I can go on. Would you like me to. How about just using the law of probability. The odds of something happening. Smallest free-living thing that duplicate itself. It would require 239 individual protein molecules. Odds of 1 protein molecule forming all the amino acids into left-handed chains (unknown why, but all life consists of only left-handed protein molecule chains). Minimal number of amino acids is 410. Chance 10 to the 123 power. (10 with 123 0’s) Now that has to be repeated for all the other 238 proteins. Now the odds go to 10 to the 29345 power. Those odds are to high for science to seriously consider as feasible. Want more, ask. Got all kinds of good stuff. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.
Two things: First I forgot to give credit to my info Dr. Harold Morowitz; Yale. Next: to K. Sanders You need to get your facts straight about God and Creation. You seem to believe what is called the “Gap” theory. God made time for man. “And the morning and the evening were the first day. (24 hour period) NOTHING EVOLVED. God made mature animals and plants just the way they are today. As far as time, I will say this, it is doubtful time is equal in all of the universe.
I just don’t get this massive rift in America between creationists and evolutionists. In europe (or any other christian country like latin america) this is a non-issue. Perhaps because there the catholic church (which is pro-evolution and doesn’t take the bible literal) is more dominant.
To Gregory, wow. I would love to talk to you. I am certainly not even close to having the scientific knowledged that you do, but be assured, I will study the things you have said. I am a creationist. One thing I do know is that the Creator, ( I just taught a lesson on Creation recently ), told us that He would put things here to confound men. I know that the verb “was” in the first verse of the Bible could also be translated easily as “became”. That is “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth WAS formless and empty.” That could explain alot of things. But more importantly…..look at the book of Job chapter 38, verse 31, “Can you bind the beautiful Pleiades? Can you loose the cords of Orion?” This was written approximately 3500 years ago. NO ONE HAD this KNOWLEDGE, even in early 1600’s when the King James was translated. That is powerful. Think about it. Pleiades is a constelation moving through space bound together. Orion is a constelation moving through space while growing apart in all directions. The Creator, God, told us this long before man knew it to be so.
[admin notes - Ben has provided us with some feedback to Dan't post from one of the social bookmark sites. Thanks, Ben.]
“How arrogant of Dan Klarmann”
He does seem to be spewing those pesky *facts* again…
I would also add that he is pressing his luck for *ever* getting into heaven…
“The entire theory (of evolution) is built upon what could have happened.
The more that is built, the more shaky it is.
All of those “could’s” and “should’s” and “may have’s” have to be affirmative… and in the end, it still does not mean it actually DID happen that way!
Faith based upon presuppositions that have not been tested with repeated results.
Faith based upon presuppositions that something happened exactly a particular way when it may not have.
God made the universe with an order.
Discovering the order does not mean God did not create it!
God called Humanity to discover His order, it was commanded in the Bible… test everything, we are told!
Science was ordained by God.
Rev Darwin and this priests followers are trying to merely replace God with their own fiction of origins.”
http://science.propeller.com/story/2007/09/20/the-evolution-of-evolution
Gregory Glass has listed several of the easily falsified disproofs of the age of the Earth. Search any actual science site to find the errors in each of his arguments.
He’s partially right about the lunar lander pads. Before we got there, we didn’t know whether the meteorite dust would have vacuum welded to breccia in the thin lunar atmosphere. As it turns out, it had and does. Now we have a better understanding of how the breccia found in deeper layers of our own planetary strata formed before water condensed to be available to fuse sediments to rock in the only way we’d understood for the last couple of centuries. Core samples brought back from the sedimentary areas of the moon’s surface show that it is fused meteorite dust as far down as we could drill. The age of the moon came from studying igneous samples.
As to time, it is one of the well-examined precepts of modern science. We use specific multi-dimensional mathematical models to describe time and its relationship to matter and energy. If our theories about time are wrong, then things like transistors, lasers, and GPS systems (all spin-offs from those formulas) wouldn’t work.
I never said that science always agrees with itself. It’s not about agreeing, but about continuously testing, every time a new observational method is worked out, or a new piece of evidence is uncovered, “science” (personified by many eager investigators) turns over every old theory hoping to find some facet that can be changed. Every challenge is carefully examined by the adversaries on both sides of each potential change. The exponentially diminishing changes to a theory over generations indicates how close to perfect that theory is becoming.
No scientific theory is ever absolute.
If Henry Ford had invented a car that spontaneously re-invented itself each year, automatically becoming next year’s model, would he be regarded as a better inventor?
If God created a universe that is teeming with life that spontaneously evolves, adapting to every changing circumstance, is He any less magnificent than One Who creates stagnant, unchanging life?
Fred doesnt say that despite claiming to be a science educator, he obviously hasnt read a reputable science journal for quite a few decades, and could he possibly post a reference for his comments on S.J.Gould as I have access to almost everything he has published and would be interested in following it up. Fred has also not read “The Burgess Shale” by the same author, had he done so he may have written differently. Greg Glas likes to toss around math but it seems more like wand polishing to me. And all this waffle about time, the earth revolves, remember? All that mankind has done is subdivide the bleeding obvious. All those massive stone monuments built during various millenia, in a variety of geographic locations, yes, these are very obvious manmade constructs -and they work, in varying degrees like any other (intellectual) tool.
Thank you Tyler for a breath of fresh air, sadly, so many of these silly Quixotic Americans still havent got it, such a wonderful country with a very respectable education system producing so many buffoons -thats what I dont get.
Good luck Mr. Klarmann.
Tyler said: “I just don’t get this massive rift in America between creationists and evolutionists. ”
It goes directly to pedigree. Mainly, where we come from determines who we think we are. This is a bigger deal in America than most other places, I think, because of the nature of our beginnings with a declaration that we are somehow New.
But it also goes to responsibility. If the creationists are right, then everything (environment, equality, wealth and poverty, etc) is ordained by the creator and not our look-out, because we (humans) were made “Special” and therefore (by some twisted logic I can barely fathom) separate from the rest of creation. If the evolutionists are right, then we are part and parcel of everything else and we ARE responsible.
It also means, in a more sinister reading, that we aren’t special–that in fact we can be replaced. (And probably will be.) For a country that sees itself as the pinnacle of political, moral, and biological possibilities, this is intolerable to many. Therefore, it must not be true. Therefore, the “heresy” of evolution must be stamped out (before our egos are so humbled that we stop trying to be lord and ruler over all we perceive).
Very simple, really.
I support Dan K’s orginal post. But the ensuing discussion thread on it affected me more than the original post. That thread makes me sad about the state of education and intellectual debate (here) in the USA.
Creationists try to shoot down evolution by claiming there is no absolute evidence of a single-species gaining new function(s). They discount the mountains of diverse supporting evidence for evolution from many locations and fields of study. And they use any found disagreements or conflicting science results to claim all science as bunk.
As Dan K. was saying, all science results are only as good as the methods & tools they are based on. Disagreements in science fuels futher work to refine results to correct those in error. Over time corroborating results and complementary finds in other areas build support to a general framework of accepted knowledge. The basic processes of Evolution passed the level of having sufficient supporting evidence many decades ago - with no conflicting evidence withstanding further scrutiny over time.
On the flip side, Creationists base their own arguments for creation on arguments for which there is NO physical evidence for the presense of god in ANY field AT ALL. Their method seems to be pointing at areas of evolution for which supporting phyical evidence isn’t yet found/known and saying “See! Evolution isn’t PROVED so we don’t have to accept it. And a Creator God is the only OTHER way such complicated forms could exist.” But they can present no evidence for the existance of THEIR GOD. (Or heck, for ANY god - christian, hindu, eskimo, norse, etc.)
Even more rediculous are the creationists who say all the physical evidence for evolution was PLANTED by an unseen but all-powerful god to confuse us! So hillarious. They have the gall to say that but then get offended if asked to evaluate the proposition that the bible sources were written by simple humans to confuse a set of gullible & uneducated peasents into following their decrees. There’s plenty of evidence every day of humans lying and cheating for power and adulation from others. But oh no! Every religion claims that THEIR’S is TRUTH — while all the others are fakes. Apply Occam’s Razor here folks.
I’m further disapproving when religious leaders attack evolution because of pockets of conflicting data. Dan K’s point was that conflicting results in science drives work to improve the evidence and resolve the conflict. One theory/statement gets strenghened and the other weakened based on evidence. While criticizing conflicting scientific data the religious clergy blithly ignore the fact that the beliefs of world’s major religions (christian/muslum vs hindu vs buddhism etc.) directly contradict each other — and NONE can present any physical evidence that supports one belief system over the others. They should get god’s house in order before throwing stones at others.
Leaders say “millions (billions) accept our religion - that shows the truths of our beliefs”. What a crock. Religions advance adoption of their own belief system not through presentation of better evidence. Regions acquire members: primarily by indoctrination of their belief system by parents into the trusting minds of their children and b) via wars that physically stop the practice of another religion and to attempt to indoctrinate the next generation in their own beliefs. Adult voluntary conversions do happen - either after marriage as a convenience for ceremony or to simplify the future indoctrination practice; in circumstances where the convertee is getting other forms of new assistance (a support group for other problems); (from a state of non-religion) to gain the emotional safety blanket to insulate themselves from troubles, death, etc.. But regardless, adult conversions are stastically insignificant in terms of % of followers of a religions except those generally termed ‘cults’ (which don’t last past 1 generation).
On the contrary, the ranks of stated atheists and agnostics come from adults making that concious decision. Thay accept that there is not yet any physical evidence for a supernatural god, that no religion of the world can present a better set of supporting evidence for it’s set of beliefs in their god than any other, so they decide not to believe in god. (Atheists believe that there IS NO god. Agnostics accept that there is no evidence for god and as such don’t practice any religion.)
Yes, many physical scientists are agnostic or atheist. But most (from my experience) are an adherent to a major religion - but believe their creation story is allegory decribing god’s intent — and not a record of physical actions. Where (if any) they see god’s hand is in acting on the individual human souls and not directly controlling the physical world. And for undertanding the workings and properties of our physical universe they look to science - and not to 3-rd hand reportings of supposed whisperings from god.
Clergy members (which is what any ‘creation educators’ are) can say all they want about morals, theology, initiating holy wars, etc. but their opinions should have no weight in setting science curriculums. Because religious beliefs aren’t founded using any scientific method or with any physical evidence of god him/herself - religious opinions will continue to be ignored by real scientists who operate based on accumulated knowledge based on physical evidence.
If society gives the clergy more say in setting public policy than qualified scientists in their given field - then to quote a common phrase “god help us all” — because it means we’re returning to the dark ages.
Jason: I do like your analysis of American Creationism as hinging on the need to consider themselves as “special.” I think that analysis works. Then again, people can be special in many ways. People who acknowledge their kinship with all of the living things on the planet might think of themselves as “special” in the sense that they are one of those animals that has a “special” intelligence that allows them to change who they are by changing their environment, hopefully for the better. But that kind of “specialness” isn’t what the Creationists crave. They crave a treasure-hunt specialness, something simple they find (in a holy book or at a church service) instead of something they must work hard to earn and understand.
It is an odd sort of specialness that invites so many conservatives to conjure up a big God who does their bidding while simultaneously claiming a humble obedience to that same God. You know, they claim “I am a humble servant of God.” All the while they pray “Hey, God, go wipe out those Muslims and gays, will ya? Praised be thy name.” Maybe it boils down to control issues.
Y’all are crazy, my son’s cat “Spock” created the universe to make sure he had daily pettings, food, water and a safe place to crap.
Another theory my daughter subscribes to is that her chubby silver tabby cat “Kiss-Kiss” created the world to make sure he could have his belly scratched at will.
I have observed these phenomena daily (sometimes multiple times) and have actual physical proofs of the existence of these creators in the form of scratches upon my person when they (or we) play too hard or I am jumped upon as prey.
I’m sorry, I have to go now and pet, feed, water, scratch a belly and change the kitty litter.
Pat provides a good overview of the controversy. I’d like to add that part of the tug-of-war between evolution and creationism is that evolution and creation relate to non-overlapping subject matter. Evolution explains how species could change their morphology and function over time; it doesn’t explain, nor does it try to explain, how life initially began. Unfortunately, this doesn’t stop the creationists from ridiculing evolution for this imaginary omission. The fact is that virtually every culture has a creation myth, and “creationism” is merely the Christian version. But evolution is not about creationism, it is a scientific inquiry into how life, however it first began, might have produced the variety of life we see today.
Also, as regards Pat’s comment that, “Creationists try to shoot down evolution by claiming there is no absolute evidence of a single-species gaining new function(s),” indeed, there is plenty of such evidence. Just last year, a three-armed human baby was born in China. Likewise, other human rareties include mutations such as hermaphroditism. Of course, gaining new function isn’t the only way evolution can occur: species can also lose function, as evidenced by the animals that evolve in underground caves and lose their eyesight. What creationists conveniently ignore is the fact that higher mammals are already so highly evolved that *adding* new functions is exceedingly unlikely. They will point out that we don’t see (highly evolved) cats giving birth to (highly evolved) dogs, which is a true statement, but it misses the point of evolution. Evolution isn’t about one highly evolved species turning into another one; it is about multiple species having a common antecedent; namely, a relatively unevolved ancestor species that possessed a successful new form, which then provided the genetic raw material from which subsequent offspring could adapt to many different niches in the food chain…eventually leading to species specialization. This process is invariably happening today, too, but we have no way of knowing which of the various critters on our planet are the common ancestors to life of the 30,000th-century. Probably, it includes a cockroach, an ant, a fish, and a human. But if we speculate about a common ancestor to life of the 300,000th-century, I suspect humans drop off the tree. Given the trajectory of our lifestyle, it seems to me a few hundred thousand years will be enough time for our species to exterminate itself. Evolution giveth, and evolution taketh away.
Wow, I guess there’s a reason you’re not called Cheerypilgrim!
On the other hand “dropping off the tree” like a leaf in autumn sound a lot more peaceful than the end of humans on Earth depicted in the Book of Revelations.
Thank you, Thank you, Pat and grumpypilgrim.
May I also recommend Panda’sThumb.com for enlightened reading. It’s a wonderful source of info in response to the Discovery Institute et.al.
Also, to find out more about Intelligent Design (ID) arguments, read about the Kitzmiller v Dover Area School Board trial (Dover Panda Trial). Wikipedia has a pretty good summary of the trial without editorializing, but I encourage even further reading about ID arguments.
Dan Klarmann’s article was great to read.